Lessons from the Brazilian elections
Brazil is at the second round of the election for President. My country is divided again by Lula and Flavio Bolsonaro supporters, who is the son of Jair Bolsonaro.
In the first round, Deputes, Senators and Governors are chosen. In a surprise that shocked many, the extreme right wing, came out on top. Of the 81 seats in the Senate, Balsonaro’s Parido Liberal (PL), got 21, while Lula’s Work Party (PT) only 6. PL has 121 elected candidates for Federal Deputy, which is the highest number achieved by a unique party since our democratic constitution was founded in 1988. PL also did best of any party in elections for State Governors in Brazil, with 5 so far, only in the first round.
Bolsonaro’s PL are, as many newspapers have confirmed, the biggest party at the moment, an electoral phenomenon. Behind this political phenomenon is a highly conservative agenda. It differs from conservatism of the Global North, which is obsessed with immigration, but in Bolsonaro’s case it is an attack on Brazilians: the poor; the Black population; indigenous people, women, the LGBTQIA+ community. It is an agenda against, social inclusion, to sum up in a simple phrase, Promising to transform Brazil by ending of the corruption and criminality, the majority of the Brazilian population have chosen the most corrupt, elitist, and criminal politicians in our history.
Just for a quick example, of many, Flavio Bolsonaro is himself involved in many schemes of money laundering, membership of a criminal organisation and violence.
Why are Brazilians are going for such a candidate, who is not only intrinsically bad for everyone except for his family, but also instrumentally bad in terms of longer-term effects? Not only will he cut many social benefits, intensify violence, and reduce opportunities, he threatens to destroy our democracy.
Specialists, no doubt, will each have a favourite a list of reasons to understand this phenomenon, but one stands out as becoming ever more powerful: the role of the big tech in influencing our electoral process.
Meta is for instance for a time blocked videos and posts from the left wing candidates, and put up other barriers for their online presence. As is well-known the algorithms are biased: the left wing gets less attention, reduced viewing, and their posts are more restricted in their circulation.
On the other side, not only is the social media system boosting Flavio Bolsonaro, as it did his father in previous elections, but Bolonaro has armies of robots or fake accounts systematically posting and reposting his material.
Lula’s supporters take to streets, colourfully and noisily mobilising behind him. But these demonstrations of support barely penetrate social media, unlike coverage in favour of his opponent. The social media bias, of course, a huge impact in his campaign, which is deliberately hobbled by Bolsanoro’s supporters. Many young politicians are fighting back, trying to revitalise Lula’s chances for the second round, such as Janones and Ana Elisa for the Workes Party, but the fact that Lula’s starting point was so unequal raises serious and urgent questions about the emerging underlying structure for elections, not just in Brazil but around the world.
And if there are different rules for different parties, and no clarity or enforcement of the rules of what is allowed in this new space (robots; fake news), are our elections fair? Who, in the end, is choosing our candidates? This is a crisis of democracy, and like any crisis it needs urgent action. But what can be done, and who has power to do it. If the President can’t make elections fair, who can?
The next round of the election is coming fast: 25th of October. Lula supporters must hope that, for the sake of Brazil, he has a chance to get his message across despite the obstacles deliberately put in his way. But whatever the outcome later this month we need to debate a set of serious structural questions about the terms of democratic engagement, which directly and indirectly have such a profound effect on the lives of us all.
